Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.

The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.

On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.

The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.

RollOnFriday is not naming the partner, but has unavoidably narrowed down his office location to one side of the building.

In a statement, Hogan Lovells said, "We were made aware of an individual in our office mis-using their computer to watch adult material. Such behaviour is unacceptable and we have suspended them pending a full internal investigation". An insider said it was a case of "Hogan (Self) Lovells", although RollOnFriday has been unable to confirm just how much self-love the partner was expressing at the time.

Asked how he circumnavigated the firm's firewall, a spokeswoman for Hogan Lovells said, "We didn’t block access to websites unless they represented a cybersecurity risk (eg they have malware on them). The nature of our work for clients sometimes means we need to carry out investigations in areas which require us to have flexible access". But it seems one horny partner has brought the era of free browsing to an end: "We have reviewed and tightened this policy", she said.

Just to be clear: so the Hog Love partner was alone in his office watching some “adult material” (I presume he/she is an adult and that is wasn’t “hog love” material - sorry for the pun) and someone in another building thought it was an adequate and appropriate response to film him/her doing that and snitch him/her to Hog Love? Unless the partner in question was deliberately exposing him/herself on the window (which I would personally find amusing rather than offensive), shame on you, Irwin Mitchell snitch. You are definitely in need of doing what the Hog Love partner was watching. And now we all inevitable know on what side of your building you sit (not that anyone knows or cares about IM though).

Really? The IM lawyer felt the need to report it to HL? Presumably, given no police involvement, it wasn’t illegal content so why would you do that (unless you’re bitter that you’re working at IM rather than HL, of course).

I am more concerned that IM lawyers think it’s ok to snoop into the office on another solicitor. And that they could see the computer screen!!

What are they even doing in London with their low grade trip snd slip rear end shunt work?

There were many ways in which something like this could have been dealt with but that assumes a basic level of compassion and decency. The person who filmed this and then escalated it is a low life worm.

Interesting to see how this is coming out in the comments. Noone defending the HL partner (clearly a proper plonker) but almost unanimous agreement that the IM snitching is petty, unpleasant and unbecoming.

Can’t believe anyone would think his behaviour is acceptable! He was watching presumably illegal adult content in a public space with his blinds open. Not to mention the sexual harassment issues of anyone, never mind a partner, doing anything sexual in the work place. Can you imagine having to work for him?

Disgusting behaviour and he deserves to get fired. And if HL tolerate that sort of behaviour they deserve to be investigated for mysoginistic and inappropriate work place practices.

I'm gonna' jack it where the sun always shines.
(He's gonna jack it)
Been spreading the word and now I need to ease my mind
(jackin' it, oh)
Been planting apple seeds, and while the apples grow
I'm gonna go out jackin' it in HogLove.

I don't need no shirt no, gonna' take them pants right off.
(he's about to jack it)
On such a bright day, who needs underwear or socks?
(jack it, jack it, ho!)
Been around god's country, and there's one thing I know,
There's no better place for jackin' it than HogLove!

It does raise the question of what confidential material the Irwin Snitcher may have been reading over the Hog-Lover's shoulders before. Given the respective positions of the two firms, Hog-Lover's unlikely to have been interested in anything Snitcher was up to.

@dan Sorry, but why would anyone want to work in an office where this happens? Think you should all stop focusing on whether the IM employee is jealous or a snitch and start focusing on how unacceptable this is...

Social mores change. What is considered acceptable changes. It will be interesting to see which direction our society turns in respect of pron. Are we on a 'liberal' trajectory that will in future mean that this sort of thing becomes if not acceptable to all, then at least not as prone to condemnation as it is at present, much like swearing on TV? Or is fourth-rate feminism and the #meetoo 'movement' going to endure to the extent that actually, the majority view will always hold this to be unacceptable, or perhaps even more unacceptable than it is at present?

If the up and downvotes here are indicative of wider societal feeling, we appear to be either liberalising, or perhaps merely turning into anonymous trolls.

Frankly I do not see any crime being committed here. Clearly a management/HR issue but 100% not the business of another law firm who frankly should not be snooping on another law firm. Clearly driven by a massive chip from IM

The HL partner is in the wrong because they shouldn't be using work time and assets to watch adult content. If they wanted to do that (and assuming the content they were watching wasn't illegal), they should have done that on their own time and on one of their own devices.

The IM lawyer is also in the wrong because, while the HL partner shouldn't have been doing what they were doing, they had no right to watch and film them doing it and dobbing them into the firm seems a bit snitchy.

"Because it is unprofessional, and because whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, there are very many people who consider it to be utterly demeaning to women. "

Agreed, it is unprofessional. However, it is not deemed unacceptable simply because many people consider it demeaning (or any other negative adjective). Things are not unacceptable simply because people don't like it. If that were true, everything would be unacceptable. Including your comment, and mine.

Great that so many people are commenting, but isn't it too soon to pass judgment?

If he allowed himself to be seen in the office engaged in sexual activity (i.e. masturbating), then he only has himself to blame, albeit he didn't intend to harm anyone. IM lawyer still doesn't come out of it great by releasing the film upfront and allowing it to leak. Perhaps they thought it was evidence of a crime, but to me it seems more like covertly filming someone engaged in sexual activity and distributing it to the wider world without their consent. Anyone care to comment if that is itself a crime?

If he was just watching porn, then OK he can't be allowed to get off scot-free, but seriously, the IM lawyer is the one at fault.

The comments that this was some orchestrated scheme by IM as a firm are just ridiculous. If the IM lawyer had passed it on to IM HR in the first place, I am sure the whole thing would have been handled far more professionally than the current mess.

Beyond the funny defence of firm hierarchy, these comments are alarming.

There are loads of legal things that are totally acceptable in life generally but inappropriate for a workplace. Should people start washing in buckets / practicing lap dancing in their office? Even when they think no-one is looking?

It’s a shared work space that requires respect for the other people who work there.

No the partner shouldn’t lose his/her job, and this isn’t about being a prude, or defending a ‘snitch’ (seriously, do you think you’re the Krays?) it’s about behaving with a modicum of respect for other people and calling someone out when they’re clearly not displaying that respect

If you want some self-loving take yourself home, or to somewhere where other people might want to watch you.

As a matter of integrity, and, having regard to the potential effects on this person's career, would it not have been more appropriate for IM to search the 'offender' out and give him a private warning. what IM have done may have devastating consequences.

Firstly, as someone who has had an addiction I sympathize with this whoever this is. Do it once, think you've got away with it, you do it again and again. I didn't get caught, I stopped myself by getting help. This guy needs help. That is not suggesting that his behaviour is not highly unprofessional, disrespectful to his firm and his colleagues (even though he was clearly doing this in private), and possibly fraudulent (was he billing that time?). It is all those things. An internal investigation is correct and the right step. But the power of any addiction is immense, and if you've not had it you cannot understand it. Secondly, if I had noticed someone doing that, I would probably have made an attempt to contact him directly and subtly and say mate, you've got to stop that shit, I'm probably not the only person that can see you. Filming it first, then going straight to HR? It's clear who the total wanker is in this situation.

I feel awful for the partner. Yes, what he did was stupid - of course you shouldn't watch porn on work's dime - BUT, he thought he was doing so privately and wasn't causing anybody any harm. As far as I can tell, he wasn't watching or doing anything illegal.

For him to potentially lose his job, and most definitely have his reputation in tatters, over this is not fair - just my view.

Irwin Mitchell should equally have been more professional and sensitive in all of this - having a junior film it and share it with mates across the City circuit, and then having a senior send it on to HR, is not the right way of going about things.

No doubt the Snitchel ambukance chaser at its window trying to spy a car accident so it could run down and give out a business card. They saw a different kind of shunt but poor form to film it and then grass it up and publicise it.

Watching pron in the office is rife and has been since t'internet was born, however most people have switched to using their phone. I know this because often the phones are still connected to the "guest wifi" and it shows up in the internet browsing logs (we pretend it's anonymous, but we can see the name you gave your phone...).

Plenty of people still boshing in the meeting rooms in the evenings, and store cupboards in the day (CCTV in the corridors gives a good clue).

Do we think that's More, Less or Equally unacceptable to bosh with a partner than to bosh in solitude?

As someone who used to work at IM, perhaps I can shed some light on the fact that both offices have ceiling to floor glass windows and it’s not controversial to accept that due to the proximity of the buildings that if you look out of your window - thinking or to check if it’s raining for example - then you will inadvertently end up glancing into the other offices.

It doesn't really matter that he was watching pron (assuming he wasn't on the clock or in a common area/able to be overheard). The fact that he used a computer screen which could be easily seen from nearby offices, however, shows a somewhat concerning level of stupid...

It is not against the law to view porn. Indeed some of us may well have to view it for work purposes. I am not joking either.

If IM lawyers have nothing better to do that snoop on other lawyers that probably says more about them than HL partners who may well be representing a porn publisher and having to check the mateiral - yes someone has to do that onerous task. Mind you if he had his trousers down at the same time imight be quite hard to bring that into the category of work unless he has been asked to assess how aroused the porn makes the viewer I suppose.

@Really? - Its not so much that people are condoning the partner (although do remember he thought he was acting in private), I think its just that a lot of people find what the person who filmed it and then used the film to make a complaint (allegedly after circulating it among other people) did to be very grubby behaviour.

the fact that anyone on here thinks it’s ok to look at porn while at work (whether in a separate office or not and whether colleagues are around or not) is worrying. It’s never ok. If he thinks that is ok then just what else is he doing that he thinks is ok? It calls into question his whole behaviour and his career should ride on it (pun intended) because it shows he doesn’t give a sh*t what he does. If an example is not made then it clears the way for lots of awful behaviour by any fee earners. It might sound like virtue signalling but that’s probably what is needed by such a gormless partner.

as for IM- they clearly have their own issues but not their fault for, dear god, looking out a window. I wouldn’t want to see that. And if the HL partner thinks it’s acceptable behaviour in front of a massive window then he deserves all he gets.

Jeepers! I work at IM and often play with the crown jewels.... I just looked over to HL tonight and they were all filming us - how dare they!!!!! Result: I had to put my files and jewels away and climb back down from my usual prime position - hanging off the top shelf facing the window on a Friday night. What am I going to do for thrills now? Please help.

@Ye gads - a lot of people feel that the behaviour of the IM solicitor was less ok. But its unwise to look at someone's behaviour and try to make assumptions about 'their whole behaviour'. And why the fixation on porn - why not sack any fee earner or anyone else caught surfing the net, according to your logic.

Has anyone considered that the accused may have been reviewing evidence? Employment lawyers and litigators do have cases involving porn and inappropriate behaviour. He is under investigation and I used to think that people were innocent until proven guilty..anyone remember that quaint legal principle?

Not sure I agree with all these comments against the IM lawyer - there are clearly too many Hogan Lovell lawyers with a superiority complex. It doesn’t sound to me like it was snitching because of jealousy - it sounds more like it was filmed for a laugh and sent on to mates at HL (which I’m not condoning but it’s more understandable/something that a lot of folks would do). That said I may just be biased against HL given that in an interview with them I was asked if ‘I liked dags’ aka Brad Pitt’s Irish gypsy character in Snatch because I was told I had a broad accent! Charming firm all together!!

A bigger issue is the fact IM can see into the rooms. If there is anyone outside my office window in the garden I close the curtains in case they see confidential client material on the screen or on my desk. If all those offices along that line of the building can be seen into by IM then the firm needs to require people to have some kind of blind up all day or put some device up that reflects back rays into IM to make it impossible for them to see in. That is more important than whether he (or she) was vetting material for clients to check compliance with legislation in the area of pornography.

amazing how screwed up the comments are. Do none of these people have any common sense on how this should be treated or handled! It’s obvious that the HL lawyer should be castrated and the “Irwin Snitchell” lawyer given a prison sentence for voyerism and at the same time a community award

Like some have said, I suppose this might be a case where the ‘grass’ didn’t actually grass, but sent a recording to someone, who sent it on, who sent it on, etc. until it reached HR and the trouble began. So maybe the story’s got twisted. Seems unlikely though.

If it is what it looks like, this is just a loathsome act of self-righteousness. Anyone who ruins the career of a lawyer from a firm over the road for something done in private - no, the fact of being at work doesn’t make the conduct public - that causes no harm to anyone should be shunned by his/her workmates and made a pariah in the profession.

met reading is that the IM lawyer sent it to his mates at HL and then passed it around and someone then sent it to HR. It seems a bit far fetched to say that the IM lawyer snitched. Im afraid the HL lawyer was pursuing a very risky activity. and I'm sorry but on a Monday morning?

It is not plausible to suggest somebody at IM has mates at HL. The more likely explanation is that somebody at HL slipped on a grape in the supermarket and instructed somebody at IM to pursue said supermarket for damages for a twisted gonad or something similar.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like people are missing the point in these comments. Of course it was inappropriate in the office - and in most other places. It is, and always will be, an activity best undertaken at home. But they clearly didn't mean to get caught and I doubt they weighed up the pros and cons of their impending action beforehand. The HL partner was foolish, probably shouldn't lose their job, but surely fully expects to now this has gone public. And there's no indication, as suggested in some comments (@ladylawyer) that it was illegal (there's quite a lot of legal porn now if you weren't aware) or misogynistic (which is spelt with a y by the way, from the greek gyne for women, same root as gynecology...........). The partner could have been male of female, straight or gay, watching any combination of porn scenarios, not all of which are demeaning to women. Some are actively demeaning to men. But, you know, keep up the good fight of assumption and passive aggression I guess.

What no-one else has mentioned is just how weird it is. Not whether it was appropriate or not, or stupid or not, or legal or not. But it's weird isn't it? In the office? I've had some thoughts in the office before that I probably wouldn't speak out loud or act upon, but I have never ever thought : "Ok, so still waiting on that call and I have 10 minutes till my client meeting. I might start work on my business plan. Nah, forget that, I'll just knock out a quick crafty one instead. Idle hands and all that.............."

Glad it wasn’t just me who thought that the biggest wanker of them all was the IM snake!

Ok, you don’t want to see this fella giving himself a stroke; simplest way of dealing is to try and find out which person is in which office. Then a friendly call to let them know you can see. More than likely they’d be so embarrassed they wouldn’t do it again anyway! No need to be a grass and lose a guy his livelihood for what is a fairly natural (albeit inappropriate) act.

Shame on Irwin Mitchell. If I was their Client, I would immediately cancel the Mandate. Filming a colleague from a window! BAAHHH! Wouldn't they better concentrate on their own legal work! This big brother watching behaviour is a shame. By the way, in many other EU-jurisdictions this IM lawyer woould be subject to Crown prosecution because filming others without consent can be a serious crime under criminal sanctions.

Shame also on Hogan Lovells for the suspension. For giving in on dirty tricks by competitor law firms. They shoud protect their staff. Watching a bit of porn, SO WHAT?!!?? Would they have suspended if this lawyer was a female? Modern women in these days also watch porn, whether at home, in public or on a tea break at work. Hogan is acting janus-face like. Would they ever lbby against porn on the net? Of Course we are talking about regular adult porn here, nothing offensive or scandalous in that respect.

Let the lawyers in piece. Let them have a bit of porn during Little breaks here and there. Probably their legal letters will be more vivid and vibrant then. Excuse my language but: Fuck the lawyer from Irwin Mitchell, kick him out, no pink slip, no garden leave. Suspend his Membership at the bar. His filming was more than ludicrous.

The communal kitchen is where it was filmed from... It was filmed as a laugh to show mates in the office which got circulated round the whole of IM. This then got the filmer in trouble and eventually had to be taken to HL as a matter of course. And the filmer was a girl as everyone keeps referring to a him...

So, the question still is what is Irwing Mitchells official statment to this? Would they apologize for this? Is filming others through an office or communal kitchen illegal in the UK? Will there be a sanction to this? . . . and subsequently an apologetic approach and compensation for the targetted lawyer? Generally I can contribute the following: Under the laws in other jurisdictions, Irwin Mitchell would apparently be subject to criminal prosecution for illegal filming (illegal bevause no consent of the targetted subject and no other justification). Subsenquently to this illegal behaviour the law firm - being responsible and liable for actions of their staff, whether male/female or a group of joking people - would have to compensate the Hogan Lovells lawyer for any losses he might face in light of this illegal filming. In case he loses his job ( don't know what current "suspension" means and it is still subject to investigation whether the suspension is an unjustified overreaction) they would have to compensate him. Maybe they can offer him a job at Irwin Mitchell, this would be great fun and would complete the irony of the case. It would give the case a nice Monty Python alike ending and everyone will have a good laugh.

Actually, this is not funny at all. Has anyone ever thought about how the partner is feeling? What did he do? In any case nothing illegal. But he loses his job, his economic existence, and his reputation. Probably he has a family, a wife, children. He has to explain to his wife and children why he lost his job. One does not easily become a partner in a law firm like Hogan Lovells. He has probably worked very hard all his life for this. Was it wise to watch porn in the office? No. It was a mistake. But he's only a human being, like all of us. Everyone at Hogan Lovells will soon know who that was because of the location of the offices and the fact that a partner leaves the firm in direct connection with this incident. How humiliating and embarrassing that is. How will he feel about it? Nobody cares about that. That concerns me. We are all very good at judging others, pointing fingers at others or blaming others. Nobody worries about the consequences. The lady who filmed the partner and circulated the video should also think about that...

I’d be more worried about Hogs lack of internet filtering. If porn isn’t blocked, what other nasties are not blocked. If filth can get onto their network so easily can malware too, and worse still, what gets let OUT

secure internet gateways are pretty much page 1 on how to do cybersecurity. Doh